| Date |
Text |
| 2022-12-13 12:02:50 | TRAFFIC COMMENTS |
| | 1) PARTIALLY SATISFIED. GIVEN THE CHANGE IN LAND USE |
| | INTENSITY AND DRIVEWAY ACCESS POINTS, PROVIDE AN |
| | UPDATED COUNTY TPS LETTER, ONCE RECEIVED |
| | 2) SATISFIED. A METHODOLOGY MEETING SHOULD BE SCHEDULED |
| | TO DISCUSS A REVISED TRAFFIC STUDY, AS THE LATEST ONE |
| | IS BASED ON OLD DATA COLLECTION, AS WELL AS PEDESTRIAN |
| | CROSSING STUDIES FOR ENHANCED MARKED CROSSWALK ACROSS |
| | DIXIE HWY AT BARCELONA RD AND CORDOVA RD |
| | 3) PARTIALLY SATISFIED. DEPENDING ON THE OUTCOME OF THE |
| | TRAFFIC STUDIES AND PARKING REQUIREMENTS, |
| | TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT (TDM) MEASURES, ROAD |
| | SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS AND CONTRIBUTION TO FUTURE TRANSIT |
| | OPERATIONS MAY BE NEGOTIATED. TO BE FURTHER DISCUSSED |
| | 4) PLEASE INSERT FIGURE, TABLE AND PAGE NUMBERS/LETTERS |
| | FOR EASE OF REFERENCE |
| | 5) PROVIDE THE LATEST SITE PLAN IN THE TRAFFIC STUDY, |
| | PROPERLY DATED |
| | 6) SITE ACCESS AND ON-SITE CIRCULATION PARAGRAPH NEEDS |
| | BETTER ELABORATION OR CORRECTION, AS IT DOES NOT SEEM |
| | TO DEPICT LATEST SITE PLAN. PLEASE CLEARLY INDICATE THE |
| | DRIVEWAY TYPOLOGY (I.E. PUBLIC, SERVICE, ONE-WAY, |
| | FULL-ACCESS) IN THE TURNING MOVEMENT FIGURE |
| | 7) VALET OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS NEEDS TO PROPERLY |
| | REFERENCE FIGURES (I.E. NUMBER/LETTER), AND LEGEND |
| | SHOWCASING AND DESCRIBING ALL USED COLORS (I.E. WHAT IS |
| | THE GREEN PATH?) |
| | 8) PLEASE SHOWCASE VALET VEHICLES PATHS TO/FROM THE |
| | GARAGE SPACES |
| | 9) PLEASE PROVIDE REALISTIC CALCULATIONS OF VALET |
| | DRIVING/WALKING TIMES TO/FROM THE STALLS/PODIUM |
| | 10) CLEARLY MARK THE VALET PICK-UP AND DROP-OFF AREAS |
| | |
| | SITE COMMENTS |
| | 11) PARTIALLY SATISFIED. PROVIDE A CLEAN TRANSPORTATION |
| | SPECIFIC SITE PLAN FOR THE GROUND FLOOR. SHOWCASING |
| | TRANSPORTATION RELATED FEATURES (E.G. ROADWAY WIDTHS, |
| | DRIVING AISLES, PARKING STALLS, SIDEWALK, CURB, GUTTER, |
| | DRIVEWAY, GATES, CROSSWALKS, VISIBILITY TRIANGLE, |
| | CORNER & DRIVEWAY SEPARATION DISTANCES, SLOPES, ETC.) |
| | PROPERLY LABELED AND DIMENSIONED. THE SITE PLAN SHOULD |
| | BE NAMED T-1.0. MISSING SEVERAL DIMENSIONS. THIS IS A |
| | TRANSPORTATION REVIEW: SIDEWALK WALKABLE AREA, TRAVEL |
| | LANES, DRIVEWAY AISLES, CURB-TO-CURB ROADWAY DIMENSIONS |
| | ARE ALL IMPORTANT AND MOSTLY MISSING, WHILE SETBACK |
| | DISTANCES ARE SEMI-USELESS |
| | 12) NOT SATISFIED. IN THE T-1.0 SITE PLAN, PLEASE |
| | SHOWCASE BASIC CURB DETAILS (E.G. DRIVEWAY, CURB CUTS, |
| | PAVEMENT MARKINGS, PARKING STALLS, ETC.) ON THE |
| | OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE ROADS SURROUNDING THE PROPOSED |
| | DEVELOPMENT. MISSING CURB DETAILS FOR THE NORTH SIDE OF |
| | FLAMINGO DRIVE, WEST SIDE OF DIXIE HIGHWAY, SOUTH SIDE |
| | OF CORDOVA RD |
| | 13) NOT SATISFIED. PROVIDE A SIGNAGE AND PAVEMENT |
| | MARKING PLAN. INCLUSIVE OF ALL FEATURES WITHIN THE |
| | PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND ALONG ALL ROADS FRONTING THE |
| | SITE. SUCH PLAN IS PART OF THE TRANSPORTATION REVIEW |
| | AND SHOULD BE NAMED ACCORDINGLY (E.G. T-1.1 OR T-2.0). |
| | TRAVEL LANE PAVEMENT MARKINGS ARE MISSING AS WELL AS |
| | CURB DETAILS ON THE OPPOSITE OF THE ROADS SURROUNDING |
| | THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT |
| | 14) NOT SATISFIED. SHOWCASE ALL CORNER CLEARANCE AND |
| | DRIVEWAY SEPARATION DISTANCES. SPECIFY IF ANY MINIMUM |
| | DISTANCES ARE NOT MET. IN THAT CASE, VARIANCES MAY BE |
| | NEEDED FOR THE PROPOSED DRIVEWAYS AND ON-STREET PARKING |
| | STALLS. PER THE FDOT LETTER, PLEASE SHOWCASE THE |
| | 50-FEET DISTANCE FROM THE ULTIMATE RIGHT-OF-WAY, AS |
| | WELL AS THE REQUESTED DRIVEWAY DISTANCES. ENGINEERING |
| | SERVICES WILL THEN ASSESS VARIANCES/WAIVERS |
| | REQUIREMENTS, IF ANY |
| | 15) NOT SATISFIED. PROVIDE AUTOTURN ANALYSIS FOR |
| | GARBAGE TRUCK AND/OR SERVICE VEHICLES DRIVING IN AND |
| | OUT OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WITH VEHICLE DYNAMIC |
| | ENVELOPES AND WHEEL PATHS CLEARLY DISTINCT AND DEFINED |
| | IN DIFFERENT COLORS. SITE PLAN(S) CONTAINING THE |
| | ANALYSIS ARE PART OF THE TRANSPORTATION REVIEW AND |
| | SHOULD BE NAMED ACCORDINGLY (E.G. T1.2, T-3.0). PLEASE |
| | ADDRESS THE COMMENT PROPERLY; REPEATING THEM: TWO |
| | DIFFERENT COLORS FOR VEHICLE WHEEL PATHS AND DYNAMIC |
| | ENVELOPE. SAMPLE AUTOTURN ANALYSIS CAN BE PROVIDED, IF |
| | REQUESTED, SO TO AVOID FURTHER MISUNDERSTANDINGS |
| | 16) SATISFIED. PROVIDE ENGINEERING REFERENCE AND SPECS |
| | SHEETS FOR EACH OF THE PROPOSED TRANSPORTATION FEATURES |
| | (E.G. CURB, RAMP, GATE, SIGNAGE, PAVEMENT MARKING, |
| | SIGNAL, ETC.) |
| | 17) PARTIALLY SATISFIED. PROVIDE A PARKING TABLE |
| | SHOWCASING THE NUMBER OF REQUIRED AND PROVIDED PARKING |
| | SPACES, INCLUSIVE OF ADA AND BICYCLE ONES. IN THE TABLE |
| | SPECIFY THE REQUIRED AND PROVIDED VAN ACCESSIBLE |
| | PARKING STALLS |
| | 18) NOT SATISFIED. IN THE PAVEMENT, MARKING & SIGN |
| | PLAN, PROVIDE A TABLE SHOWCASING THE NUMBER OF EXISTING |
| | AND PROPOSED ON-STREET PARKING STALLS. PROVIDE THE |
| | NUMBER OF METERED STALLS THAT ARE BEING REMOVED OR |
| | RELOCATED, IF ANY. NO TABLE IS SHOWN IN T1.1 |
| | 19) PARTIALLY SATISFIED. ARE THERE ANY GATES PROPOSED? |
| | IF SO, CLEARLY SHOWCASE THE REQUIRED 20 FEET SETBACK |
| | DISTANCE FROM THE BACK OF THE SIDEWALK. THE DISTANCE |
| | FOR THE CORDOVA GATE IS MISSING IN SHEET A1.01, OTHER |
| | LOCATIONS ARE NOT CLEAR IF A GATE IS THERE OR NOT. |
| | PLEASE PROVIDE A LIST OF GATES AND THEIR LOCATION. |
| | 20) NOT SATISFIED. ARE THERE ANY BUS STOPS BEING |
| | IMPACTED? IF SO, DEVELOPER SHALL COORDINATE WITH PALM |
| | TRAN REGARDING THE TRANSIT STOP RELOCATION AND PROVIDE |
| | A BUS SHELTER. MAINTENANCE OF THE BUS SHELTER SHALL BE |
| | DEVELOPERS??? RESPONSIBILITY. PLEASE PROVIDE AN |
| | ELABORATED RESPONSE, JUST AN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT IS |
| | INSUFFICIENT; IF MISSING, PLEASE PROVIDE A BUS SHELTER |
| | 21) NOT SATISFIED. PER CITY CODE 94-111(Q)(2): |
| | ???NON-PARKING RAMPS SHALL NOT EXCEED 16 PERCENT. IF |
| | THE RAMP IS GREATER THAN 14 PERCENT, A BREAK-OVER |
| | TRANSITION SHALL BE REQUIRED. THE PREFERRED STANDARD IS |
| | 10 PERCENT FOR NON-PARKING RAMP SLOPES???. PLEASE |
| | REVISE THE PLANS ACCORDINGLY. NO 16% RAMPS ARE ALLOWED, |
| | ARCHITECTURAL PLANS STILL SHOW SUCH VALUE. PLEASE |
| | REVISE, AND CLEARLY MARK/CALL-OUT THE BREAK-OVER |
| | TRANSITION AREAS. |
| | 22) SATISFIED. PLEASE CLEARLY MARKED THE TURN-AROUND |
| | SPACE AT EACH DEAD-END OF THE GARAGES |
| | 23) PARTIALLY SATISFIED. PLEASE CLEARLY MARK AND LABEL |
| | THE VALET PARKING SPACES. TANDEM SPACES ARE VALET ONLY, |
| | SEVERAL HAVE NOT BEEN MARKED AS SUCH, PLEASE REVISE |
| | 24) SIDEWALK CROSSINGS MUST BE STRAIGHT/ALIGNED, NO |
| | DIAGONALS. PLEASE CORRECT THE CROSSWALKS BY FLAMINGO, |
| | CORDOVA AND BARCELONA DRIVEWAYS ACCORDINGLY |
| | 25) SIGNS LEGEND MISSING IN T1.0 |
| | 26) THE SERVICE DRIVEWAYS AND DRIVE AISLE BETWEEN |
| | BARCELONA AND CORDOVA ARE NOT OPERATIONALLY PROPER. |
| | DRIVEWAYS NEED TO BE BOTH EITHER FULL-ACCESS OR ONE-WAY |
| | ONLY. HOW DO SERVICE VEHICLES TURN-AROUND IN SUCH TIGHT |
| | DRIVE AISLE OTHERWISE? |
| | 27) PER CITY CODE SEC 94-111(C)(1): IN THOSE CASES |
| | WHERE THE SIDE OF ANY STALL IS ADJACENT TO A WALL, |
| | FENCE, BUILDING, OR OTHER PHYSICAL OBSTRUCTION, THE |
| | STALL WIDTHS SHALL BE INCREASED BY A MINIMUM OF ONE |
| | FOOT. WHERE THERE IS AN OBSTRUCTION ON BOTH SIDES OF |
| | THE STALL, THE STALL WIDTHS SHALL BE INCREASED BY A |
| | MINIMUM OF TWO FEET. PROVIDE DIMENSIONS FOR EVERY STALL |
| | NEARBY A WALL OR AN OBSTRUCTION |
| | 28) GIVEN THE HISTORY OF RETAIL/RESTAURANT EMPLOYEES |
| | AND CUSTOMERS NEGATIVELY IMPACTING RESIDENTIAL |
| | ON-STREET PARKING ALONG THE S DIXIE CORRIDOR, PLEASE |
| | PROVIDE A PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN |
| | 29) PROVIDE A CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN. PLEASE |
| | REFER TO CITY CODE SEC. 84-246 FOR DETAILS |
| | |
| | VALERIO ORICCHIO |
| | CITY TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER |
| | 561-494-1092 |
| | [email protected] |
| | |
| | |
| |
Print |
